Ali Shiri, Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Ayla Stein Kenfield, Kinza Masood, Caroline Muglia, Santi Thompson, Liz Woolcott, A Faceted Conceptualization of Digital Object Reuse in Digital Repositories in:

International Society for Knowledge Organziation (ISKO), Marianne Lykke, Tanja Svarre, Mette Skov, Daniel Martínez-Ávila (Ed.)

Knowledge Organization at the Interface, page 402 - 410

Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark

1. Edition 2020, ISBN print: 978-3-95650-775-5, ISBN online: 978-3-95650-776-2,

Series: Advances in Knowledge Organization, vol. 17

Bibliographic information
Ali Shiri – University of Alberta, Canada Elizabeth Joan Kelly – Loyola University New Orleans, USA Ayla Stein Kenfield – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Kinza Masood – Mountain West Digital Library, USA Caroline Muglia – University of Southern California, USA Santi Thompson – University of Houston, USA Liz Woolcott – Utah State University, USA A Faceted Conceptualization of Digital Object Reuse in Digital Repositories Abstract: In this paper, we provide an introduction to the concept of digital object reuse and its various connotations in the context of current digital libraries, archives, and repositories. We will then propose a faceted categorization of the various types, contexts, and cases for digital object reuse in order to facilitate understanding and communication and to provide a conceptual framework for the assessment of digital object reuse by various cultural heritage and cultural memory organizations. 1.0 Introduction The emergence of large scale digital libraries and repositories such as HathiTrust, the Internet Archive, Europeana, and the Digital Public Library of America provides new opportunities for digital information users to openly and freely interact with, use and reuse a broad range of digital objects. The unprecedented availability of massive digital collections of books, manuscripts, images, photos, and maps offers new, individual and collective ways of making sense of information and of creating digital content. The implications of using, reusing, and repurposing digital content and collections, in this open and information-rich environment, are profound and multifaceted, cutting across many different institutional contexts such as libraries, archives and museums, as well as numerous disciplines and a wide range of user communities and audience types. Access to digital libraries, in particular, has been closely associated with and discussed in regards to such measures of impact, value, and usefulness. In fact, a cursory glance at many digital library evaluation models that have been developed in the past two decades, demonstrates the importance of impact assessment and usability of digital libraries. In today’s world, digital information users, academic as well as the general public, are able to make use of digital libraries to read, explore, entertain, write, research, create, and contextualize. Users engage in a diverse range of information practices and tasks, including searching, retrieving, using, learning, conceptualizing, synthesizing, presenting and disseminating. The reuse of digital objects can, for instance, be imagined in the context of educational, cultural, artistic, historical, geographical, and genealogical research and exploration. Recent research stressed the importance of and the need for developing a digital object reuse assessment framework that would support the digital library community in understanding, identifying, and categorizing digital object reuse cases and contexts to assist in measuring the value and impact of digital objects, not only for academic communities, but also for the general public (O’Gara, 2018). Such a framework needs to provide a clear understanding of the nature, type, contexts, and 403 instances of digital object reuse in digital libraries, archives, and repositories. In order to provide a comprehensive perspective of what constitutes digital object reuse, this paper aims to propose a faceted conceptualization of digital object reuse cases, contexts, instances, and examples in order to facilitate the understanding and communication of the reuse of digital objects in various digital information environments for educational, research, and general purposes. An examination of the literature and the results of a survey of digital repository managers on digital object reuse are the basis for the development of a number of key conceptual facets that could be used to understand the nature and types of digital object reuse and its various facets. Examples of the facets being developed include: The Nature of Content (content type, document type, media type), Process (aggregation, derivation, mash-ups, enhancement, reformatting, synthesis, repackaging, curation), Goals/intention (Gaming, reading, reviewing, researching, combining data sets), Agents (scholars, archivists, curators, librarians, records managers, researchers, students, readers, digital repository managers), and Environment (social media, data archives, institutional repositories, digital libraries, community archives). 2.0 Prior Research 2.1 Definitions of Digital Object Reuse Wikipedia (Wikipedia contributors, 2020) defines the term Reuse as “the action or practice of using an item, whether for its original purpose (conventional reuse) or to fulfil a different function (creative reuse or repurposing). On the other hand, reuse draws upon a nuanced understanding of how an object is repurposed or transformed”. “In a discussion of scientific data reuse, Pasquetto et al. (2017) argues that it is challenging to distinguish between use and reuse and defines the two terms as follows: ”In the simplest situation, data are collected by one individual, for a specific research project, and the first “use” is by that individual to ask a specific research question. If that same individual returns to that same dataset later, whether for the same or a later project, that usually would be considered a “use.” When that dataset is contributed to a repository, retrieved by someone else, and deployed for another project, it usually would be considered a “reuse.”” In a review of definitions for use and reuse in relation to research data, van de Sandt et al. (2019) identified four components in those definitions, namely character of data, user, purpose, and time. However, they argued that none of the identified characteristics from the discourse proved a difference between reuse and use and as a result they provided the following definition: “Thus, we define (re)use as the use of any research resource regardless of when it is used, the purpose, the characteristics of the data and its user.” Thompson et al. (2017) define use “as the process of accessing particular content. Often knowing that a user has “visited” or “downloaded” an object satisfies evaluation criteria for this category. 2.2 Assessment of Digital Object Reuse Assessment of the value, impact, and usability of digital objects requires a holistic and multidimensional framework that takes into account use, reuse, and repurposing of digital objects. While user studies have contributed significantly to how we measure, assess, and evaluate digital libraries as a whole, we need to be able to demonstrate the value and impact of digital libraries at the digital object level as well. There are quantitative measures associated with the use and reuse of digital objects such as the 404 number of clicks, downloads, bookmarks, views, likes, and items shared and saved. However, these measures only provide a general indication of impact and merit.We need methods that document and demonstrate the quality, extent, and nature of the use and reuse of digital objects in relation to such facets as the context, discipline, collection that the object belongs to, geographic origin, time period, and the nature of task or the information-bearing object that contains the used or reused item. Digital content and digital objects offer the possibilities to be used and reused in many different ways, contexts, and purposes. The Digital Library Federation Assessment Interest Group conducted a study on the use and usability assessment of digital libraries, emphasizing the importance of how users reuse digital content in various scholarly and non-scholarly contexts (Chapman et al., 2015). Their study found that reuse is associated with both the user’s intention and their behavior as they search for and identify information. It is apparent from the literature that evaluating reuse is heavily interconnected with a variety of points in the lifecycle of digital objects: - discoverability of materials - usability of both the digital objects found and the digital repositories in which they reside - user’s motivation for seeking cultural heritage resources - what users end up doing with the digital content Chapman et al. also found that there is a growing number of studies that focus on how various disciplines, in particular humanities, reuse digital content such as images. In a study of Reuse of Wikimedia Commons Cultural Heritage Images on the Wider Web, Kelly (2019) notes that the reuse of digital cultural heritage media on social media platforms has received increasing attention in the scholarly literature over the course of the last decade. In a study to assess users and and reuses of images from the Library of Congress collections, Reilly and Thompson (2017) concluded that ”... everyday users are repurposing digital content in ways that are meaningful to them, and they are acknowledging and fulfilling personal interests. These users are also sharing this content through a variety of environments on the Web, including popular social media platforms, blogs, and personal Web sites”. Other studies have investigated the intended use for digital objects in various libraries (Reilly and Thompson, 2014). In 2017, a large scale survey of more than 300 cultural heritage knowledge organizations was conducted to develop a framework for the reuse of digital objects. The study found that 40 percent of question respondents indicated that they collected reuse statistics. The most common method for collecting reuse data was “Social media metrics”, “Alert Services”, and “Reverse image lookup”. The most common kinds of reuse data collected were “Digital collections and objects cited in scholarship” and “Published or re-posted digital objects in digital media”. The least common kinds of reuse data collected were “Published data sets used in new research” (Kelly et al., 2018). 3.0 Methodology In this study we made use of a combination of methods to empirically develop a faceted conceptualization of digital object reuse. We used the results of a survey of digital repository managers on digital object reuse, which constitutes part of a research 405 project funded titled “ Developing a Framework for Measuring Reuse of Digital Objects”, funded by the Institute for Museums and Library Services (IMLS). 3.1 Survey Method The follow-up survey asked digital repository practitioners to prioritize a set of use cases aimed at assessing digital object reuse. The use cases corresponded to three categories: data collection, analysis, and reporting; programs and services; and privacy, rights management, and ethics. The survey respondents identified five use cases as the highest priority (see “Setting a Foundation” for a specific list of primary and secondary use cases): 1. Understand how content is being reused in a variety of contexts by various audiences (social media, classrooms, scholarly works, genealogy, digital humanities, etc.) 2. Tell stories of impact with the reuse data that has been captured and tailor it to specific audiences/stakeholders 3. Assess quality and quantity of items reused to inform digitization projects and priorities 4. Enable/encourage attribution of materials in various reuse contexts, including through sharing and reposting on social media, integration into classroom instruction, citing in scholarly works, or through non-academic avenues 5. Know and understand digital repository users without violating user privacy The project team draws upon these prioritized use cases as the foundation for building the assessment reuse toolkit (Kelly et. al., 2018; Thompson, et. al., 2019). But, the toolkit will draw upon all of the 9 use cases identified. 3.2 Facet analysis Originally introduced by Ranganathan (1967), facet analysis is primarily a logical approach to classification and knowledge organization (Hjørland, 2013). Broughton advocated for the use of faceted structures as digital library management tools (Broughton, 2001) and previous research has made use of facet analysis for the development of Basic Concepts Classification (Szostak, 2017). In a discussion of the cultural dimensions of facets in knowledge organization systems, Smiraglia (2017) noted that facets provide impetus to improved information architecture and knowledge organization and make the world a better place by making classification more efficacious. Facet analysis has previously been used to provide a basis for the understanding and communicating the nuanced aspects of big data (Shiri, 2014). In this paper, we argue that the facet analysis technique can be used as a basis for the development of a comprehensive and logical conceptualization of digital object reuse and the categorization of its various types, contexts, and cases in order to facilitate shared understanding and communication. 4.0 Proposed Faceted Categorization of Digital Object Reuse Given the complex nature of digital object use and reuse and the nuances associated with the ways in which decisions can be made between use and reuse, we are proposing a matrix that captures the levels of use, considering the extent of passive versus active interaction with digital objects. As can be seen from Table 1, three concepts of Use, 406 Reuse and Transformation are introduced to capture, conceptualize and clarify the notion of reuse in relation to use and transformation of digital objects. Table 1. Concepts of Use, Reuse, and Transformation Use Passive interaction with a digital object that may indicate potential interest and/or low value to an external user Reuse Active interaction with a digital object(s) that results in sharing, transmitting, or forwarding access to the object, thereby indicating potential significance or value to an external user Transformation Active interaction with a digital object that alters or changes the digital object, resulting in a new, distinct entity and indicating high impact or value to the user ● Browsing digital repositories for content ● Clicking a link for a digital object ● Downloading digital objects ● Accessing a web archive ● Watch a video online ● Read an article ● Viewing a photograph ● Listening to a song ● Taking a picture with a camera phone ● Printing digital objects ● Adjust lighting or coloring of digital items in order to faithfully represent the original object ● Charting a data set in a graph or infographic to communicate with others ● Recording a book to make an audio book ● Annotation of an image or document ● Translating the text of a digital object from one language to another ● Transcribe a digital object ● Create closed captioning for a video ● Curated sets of digital material, such as People of Color in Medieval European Art History ● K-12 education kits ● Creating a pinterest board of digital objects ● Aggregations of metadata in a discovery tool ● Painting, drawing, or otherwise artistically representing a digital object ● Adding color to a black and white photos or video in order to add artistic value to the original object ● New editions of a textbook ● Updated application profiles ● Updated procedures or documentation ● Reproducing a research study using the original parameters of an existing study ● Creating then and now photographs for an exhibit ● Combining two or more data sets for analysis ● Creation of a GIF or meme from digital objects ● Overlaying a map with data points Based on the conceptualization of the notion of reuse in the above table, we are proposing a faceted conceptualization of digital object reuse that takes into account the various nuances of the definitions and dimensions of digital object reuse. Table 2 provides an overview of the key facets, sub-facets and values for digital object reuse understanding. There are five key facets include Content, Process (transformation), Goals/intention, Agent (organizations and individuals), and Environment. These facets are based on the conceptual foundation of faceted classification. Each facet has its own sub-facets and values. 407 Table 2. A faceted classification of digital object reuse Facet Sub-facets values Content -Content type -Document type -Media type Etc. -Image -Text -Audio -Video -Software -Dataset -Metadata -Research data Process (transformation) -Automatic -Manual -Semi-automatic -Aggregated -Analyzed -Curated -Changed -Derived -Enhanced -Mash-ups -Major transformation/ alteration -Repackaged -Reformatted (file or format, e.g. compression) Synthesized -Subtracted -Unprocessed -Versioned Goals/intention (Use/Reuse) -Access -Consumption -Sharing -Data capture -Data curation -Data archiving -Data management -Data preservation -Data access -Data interoperability -Data discovery -Gaming -Reading -Reviewing -Researching -Shopping -Studying -Using -Viewing -Citing Agent (organizations, individuals) Software, algorithms, People -Scholars -Scientists -Social scientists -Humanities scholars -Archivists -Curators -Librarians -Records managers -Information managers Researchers -Scholars -Students -Readers 408 -Shoppers -Database managers -Knowledge engineers -Information scientists -Data engineers -Data scientists Environment -Recommendation systems -Social networks -Social media -Search engines -e-business sites -Data archives Institutional repositories -Digital libraries -Virtual organizations -Cloud-based systems and services -Mobile computing providers -Information providers -Harvesters -Data commons -Data centres -Collaboratories -digital humanity projects -classroom We are providing an example to elaborate on the relevance and usefulness of this type of conceptualization. Imagine a large academic library aims to measure the value, impact, and relevance of their digital collections based on not only digital object use, but also reuse of various digital objects in different contexts to inform collection development and community engagement strategies, and to introduce the ways in which the reuse of digital objects could be facilitated and tracked. In order to understand and identify various instances, examples, and manifestations of reuse of digital objects, the library has to establish what is digital object use, reuse and transformation, what are the contexts in which reuse can take place (for instance, classroom, art history, social media etc.), what types of interactions users get involved in when they reuse a digital object (for instance, simple browsing, manipulating data and, image, or transforming and recreating a new entity). The proposed facted conceptualization facilitates the understanding and communication of the instances, contexts, examples, and environments in which digital object reuse can take place. Future research needs to expand and enhance this typology to cover the more subtle and nuanced aspects of digital object reuse, its use cases and contexts. As part of the Digital Content Reuse Assessment Framework Toolkit (D-CRAFT) project, funded by the IMLS1, we are currently investigating the development of a toolkit that would support and enable 1 “D-CRAFT 2019-2021.” 2019. Digital Library Federation Content Reuse Working Group. 2019. 409 cultural heritage and knowledge organizations to conduct digital content reuse assessment by developing various use cases and tools. 5.0 Conclusion The value and impact of digital objects and their reuse should be conceptualized not only as part of the scholarly communication lifecycle but also as part of lifelong learning, recreational experiences, and activities of digital information users and searchers. It is timely for the digital library community to ensure and promote the relevance and usefulness of digital libraries by providing new frameworks and measures that evaluate and assess the impact of use and reuse of digital objects in relation to intellectual and artistic creativity as well as to informed citizenry, social responsibility, and democracy. Acknowledgement This work is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (LG- 36-19-0036-19). The views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. References Broughton, Vanda. 2001. “Faceted Classification as a Basis for Knowledge Organization in a Digital Environment; the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a Model for Vocabulary Management and the Creation of Multidimensional Knowledge Structures.” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 7, no. 1: 67–102. Chapman, Joyce, Jody DeRidder, Megan Hurst, Elizabeth Kelly, Martha Kyrillidou, Caroline Muglia, Genya O’Gara, Ayla Stein Kenfield, Santi Thompson, Rachel Trent, Liz Woolcott, and Tao Zhang. 2016. Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries. Hjørland, Birger. 2013. “Facet Analysis: The Logical Approach to Knowledge Organization.” Information Processing & Management 49, no. 2: 545–57. Kelly, Elizabeth Joan. 2019. “Reuse of Wikimedia Commons Cultural Heritage Images on the Wider Web.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 14, no. 3: 28–51. Kelly, Elizabeth Joan, Ayla Stein Kenfield, Genya O’Gara, Caroline Muglia, Santi Thompson, and Liz Woolcott. 2018. Setting a Foundation for Assessing Content Reuse: A White Paper From the Developing a Framework for Measuring Reuse of Digital Objects Project. O’Gara, Genya Morgan, Liz Woolcott, Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Caroline Muglia, Ayla Stein, and Santi Thompson. 2018. “Barriers and Solutions to Assessing Digital Library Reuse: Preliminary Findings.” Performance Measurement and Metrics 19, no. 3: 130–41. Pasquetto, Irene V., Bernadette M. Randles, and Christine L. Borgman. 2017. “On the Reuse of Scientific Data.” Data Science Journal 16: 8. Ranganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to Library Classification. New York: Asia Publishing House. Reilly, Michele and Santi Thompson. 2014. “Understanding Ultimate Use Data and Its Implication for Digital Library Management: A Case Study.” Journal of Web Librarianship 8, no. 2: 196–213. 410 Reilly, Michele and Santi Thompson. 2017. “Reverse Image Lookup: Assessing Digital Library Users and Reuses.” Journal of Web Librarianship 11, no. 1: 56–68. Shiri, Ali. 2014. “Making Sense of Big Data: A Facet Analysis Approach.” Knowledge Organization 41: 357–68. Smiraglia, Richard P. 2017. “Facets as Discourse: How Facets and Facet Analytical Theory Reveal Cultural Dimensions in 21st Century Knowledge Organization Systems.” In Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users: Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 14-15 September 2017, London, United Kingdom, edited by Aida Slavic and Claudio Gnoli. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 3-24 Szostak, R. 2017. “Theory versus Practice in Facet Analysis.” In Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users: Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 14-15 September 2017, London, United Kingdom, edited by Aida Slavic and Claudio Gnoli. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 259-272. Thompson, Santi, Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Ayla Stein Kenfield, Caroline Muglia, Genya O’Gara, and Liz Woolcott. 2019. Assessing Transformation: Findings from the Measuring Reuse Project. Thompson, Santi, Genya O’Gara, Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Ayla Stein, Caroline Muglia, and Liz Woolcott. 2017. IMLS National Leadership Grant (LG-73-17-0002-17). Developing a Framework for Measuring Reuse of Digital Objects. Institute of Museum and Library Services. van de Sandt, Stephanie, Sünje Dallmeier-Tiessen, Artemis Lavasa, and Vivien Petras. 2019. “The Definition of Reuse.” Data Science Journal 18, no. 1: 22. Wikipedia contributors. 2020 “Reuse.” In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Chapter Preview



The proceedings explore knowledge organization systems and their role in knowledge organization, knowledge sharing, and information searching.

The papers cover a wide range of topics related to knowledge transfer, representation, concepts and conceptualization, social tagging, domain analysis, music classification, fiction genres, museum organization. The papers discuss theoretical issues related to knowledge organization and the design, development and implementation of knowledge organizing systems as well as practical considerations and solutions in the application of knowledge organization theory. Covered is a range of knowledge organization systems from classification systems, thesauri, metadata schemas to ontologies and taxonomies.


Der Tagungsband untersucht Wissensorganisationssysteme und ihre Rolle bei der Wissensorganisation, dem Wissensaustausch und der Informationssuche. Die Beiträge decken ein breites Spektrum von Themen ab, die mit Wissenstransfer, Repräsentation, Konzeptualisierung, Social Tagging, Domänenanalyse, Musikklassifizierung, Fiktionsgenres und Museumsorganisation zu tun haben. In den Beiträgen werden theoretische Fragen der Wissensorganisation und des Designs, der Entwicklung und Implementierung von Systemen zur Wissensorganisation sowie praktische Überlegungen und Lösungen bei der Anwendung der Theorie der Wissensorganisation diskutiert. Es wird eine Reihe von Wissensorganisationssystemen behandelt, von Klassifikationssystemen, Thesauri, Metadatenschemata bis hin zu Ontologien und Taxonomien.